Redskins Lose Ruling on Trademarks, but Fight Isn’t Over

Video With the Washington Redskins’ trademark now canceled, a look at the costs in both keeping and changing the team’s name.

By KEN BELSON and EDWARD WYATT

June 18, 2014

For years, the N.F.L. and the Washington Redskins have defended the team’s name by claiming that it is a sign of honor and bravery, not a slur. When critics disagreed, the team pointed to a survey showing that a majority of Native Americans supported the name.

Making that defense may become harder. On Wednesday, a division of the federal government ruled that the Redskins name was disparaging. The team was stripped of federal protections for six of its trademarks.

The ruling was the latest indication of mounting disapproval of one of the league’s most established and lucrative brands, and it is likely to amplify a strident debate at the crossroads of politics, sports and money.

The decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, part of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, is unlikely to have an immediate financial impact while the team appeals the ruling. Even if the decision is not overturned, the Redskins can use the name and enforce its trademarks using common-law rights.

But Native American groups and members of Congress who have pressured Roger Goodell, the commissioner of the N.F.L., and Daniel Snyder, the owner of the Redskins, to abandon the name said the decision was more evidence that the league and the team must change with the times.

“The writing is on the wall, on the wall in giant, blinking neon lights,” said Senator Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat and the majority leader, who has called the name a slur.

If the decision is upheld on appeal, a process that could take years, the financial impact is unlikely to be overwhelming.

Nick Wass / Associated Press

Last month, Reid and 49 other Democratic senators urged Goodell to pressure the Redskins into changing the name. They cited action taken by the N.B.A., which gave a lifetime ban to Donald Sterling, the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, after he made racist remarks.

Snyder and Goodell, who grew up a Redskins fan, have been standing firm. In a statement, Bob Raskopf, a trademark lawyer for the team, pointed to a similar decision in 1999 that was reversed years later.

“We’ve seen this story before,” he said. “And just like last time, today’s ruling will have no effect at all on the team’s ownership of and right to use the Redskins name and logo. We are confident we will prevail once again, and that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s divided ruling will be overturned on appeal.”

If the decision is upheld on appeal, a process that could take years, the financial impact on the team is unlikely to be overwhelming. The team could continue to use its name, and the Redskins could try to stop third parties from using it by citing common-law rights that are based on use, not registration. The Redskins franchise has used the name since the 1930s.

Federal customs officials, though, would not be obligated to confiscate Redskins merchandise that entered the country, which could lead to more counterfeit gear on the market. If sales of that merchandise grew at the expense of jerseys, hats and shirts made by authorized vendors like Nike, then all N.F.L. teams except the Dallas Cowboys, who have their own merchandising deal, could suffer because they share most of their revenue.

Now that the federal government has spoken on the issue, the larger battle will be fought in the court of public opinion. Jane Shay Wald, chairwoman of the trademark practice group of the law firm Irell & Manella in Los Angeles, said that about a half-dozen trademark registrations were denied or canceled annually because, as in the Redskins case, they were found to be disparaging or otherwise objectionable.

Outside of the courts, Native American groups have successfully persuaded hundreds of high schools and colleges, including Syracuse, Miami of Ohio and St. John’s, to change their team names over the years by appealing to alumni, students and benefactors.

Professional sports teams have been more resistant to calls to change their names, although some, including the Washington Wizards, who used to be known as the Bullets, have acted in the face of public pressure. Other teams, including the Cleveland Indians and the Kansas City Chiefs, have also been criticized for not changing their names.

But money talks in pro sports, so Snyder is unlikely to change the team’s name unless Redskins fans and other N.F.L. owners pressure him, sports marketing experts said.

“I think the momentum for those who want to see the name changed is in the right direction,” said Paul Swangard, the managing director of the Warsaw Sports Marketing Center at the University of Oregon. But “unless the fans and business partners become vocal in their opposition, Snyder will continue to drag his heels.”

Snyder’s lawyers planned to appeal the board’s 2-to-1 decision, which said that “the recognition that this racial designation based on skin color is disparaging to Native Americans” was demonstrated “by the near complete drop-off in usage of ‘redskins’ as a reference to Native Americans beginning in the 1960s.”

The heavily footnoted 81-page opinion, accompanied by an 18-page dissent, was similar to one issued in 1999 that was overturned four years later largely because the courts said that the plaintiffs had waited too long to file their case. The case was refiled in 2006 by five younger Native Americans over registrations of the Redskins team name issued between 1967 and 1990.

Amanda Blackhorse, one of the five petitioners, was pleased by the board’s decision.

“We filed our petition eight years ago, and it has been a tough battle ever since,” she said in a statement. “I hope this ruling brings us a step closer to that inevitable day when the name of the Washington football team will be changed.”

Senator Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington and a former chairwoman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, acknowledged that the decision was not the final word, but she said she hoped it would spur a re-evaluation by the team.

“I hope that all the business decisions at the team will be made with the understanding that this is no longer a business case and we will get off of this slur of a name that we need to change,” Cantwell said.